PG Elite 6.5s - ACTIVE

edwellywasalreadytaken · Thu May 22, 2008 4:16 pm

Hello all. I am going to be playing around with running the Elite's active and wanted to know what crossover slopes everyone would recommend. The install will be in a 2001 VW Passat. Tweeters in the sail panels and 6.5s in the door locations. Amp is a Memphis Baby Belle at 75x4 and processor is a RF 3sixty.2.

Thank you for your advice...
~ Erik

*note* I know everyone ill say use the passive x-over. The cable runs will be the same as the passive x-over will by in the trunk beside the 360.2 - I just want to play around with this setup and utilize the TA features more.

Post by **smgreen20** » Thu May 22, 2008 5:01 pm

No they wont. Greg helped persway me to do it and I did. I asked him the slopes as well and it was at 3.15K Hz at 24 dB/oct.

I'm trying to find out what the Elite6 mids freq resp is, but no one seems to know. I want to go to a higher cut off point. Around 4.5k Hz or so. Reviews I've read say that it will help w/sound staging and imaging.

Go for it. I have some testing to do still to hold my end of the deal w/Greg, but I have to wait untill I get my stereo done and RTA'd before I do the final review. Sounds super clean at volumes which I can't take anymore. PERFECT!

Post by **smgreen20** » Thu May 22, 2008 5:02 pm

And BTW, Welcome.

thedeal7235 · Post by **thedeal7235** » Thu May 22, 2008 5:26 pm

do you mean "ACTIVE" without the actual crossover, and using either the amps internal crossover slope , or an external crossover unit?ie- electronic crossover?????? i am asking cuz ive always been told, no matter what to use the xover components came with???

Mackenzie · Post by **Mackenzie** » Thu May 22, 2008 10:55 pm

thedeal7235 wrote:do you mean "ACTIVE" without the actual crossover, and using either the amps internal crossover slope , or an external crossover unit?ie- electronic crossover?????? i am asking cuz ive always been told, no matter what to use the xover components came with???

Yes thats what he was talking about, and forget what you heard

Properly tuned drivers will run just fine active. Much more control, better capabilities.. The trick will be finding all the xover points, and tuning it to your liking.. I may do it at some point, but Ide rather have better drivers to work with, and Ide be going 3way..

gkitching · Post by **gkitching** » Fri May 23, 2008 3:29 am

If you plan on using a passive x-over then yes, you'll want to stick to the x-overs designed for the given speaker set. But 'going active' is always gonna have advantages over a passive set-up. As Mackenzie stated more control. Also better dynamics and efficiency. For both the speakers and amps. Unfortunately it also costs more. More amp channels. Sufficient x-overs. If your amp doesn't have them built in then out-board x-overs. So forth and so on.

smgreen20 .. Don't sweet it! You don't need to acknowledge me every time the subject comes up. You'll be the official expert on the subject from now on.

edwellywasalreadytaken · Fri May 23, 2008 4:22 am

Thank you for the replies.

Just to clear up any confusion – the PG Elites come with a super nice passive crossover. I am not going to use that. Instead I will use an active crossover for the tweets and the mids. So channel 1&2 will supply power to the tweets set at a high pass of 3.15k at 24db and the mids will be bandpassed on channels 3&4 from 80 to 3k at a 24db slope.

Thanks again. This gives me a good starting point. However, I am curious as to why these particular speakers are so secretive...

gkitching · Post by **gkitching** » Fri May 23, 2008 5:59 am

Well, it stems from a rash of blown tweeters from the Elite series. And just to clarify, the drivers from the Elite series were built for PG by Morel. The x-over was manufactured by PG. I was a PG dealer at the time and now a Morel dealer. I've heard both sides of the story as to why.

PG claimed the tweeters were too delicate or sensitive and couldn't handle abuse or over powering them. From that, the feelings were that if they were too delicate then going active would be sure death for the tweeters. The fear of destroying an expensive investment fueled the theory and most were not willing to risk thier investment.

Morel on the other hand claimed it was PG's x-over configuration that led to most of the tweeter failures.

Now, finger pointing is nothing new in this industry. So who was right? Well, my gut tells me that in one hand you have a company who's world wide recognition is centered around being able to produce some of the best speakers available and have had the same speakers available under thier own brand name for some time with no such problems. Then in the other hand a company who sourced the drivers but insisted on designing and building thier own x-overs for the speakers. Logic points to the new x-over.

Bottom line is though, an active set-up can at the VERY least replicate a passive crossover's filter points and slopes. The fear of going from passive to active as being a bad thing needs to be laid to rest.

gkitching · Post by **gkitching** » Fri May 23, 2008 6:04 am

smgreen20 wrote:Sounds super clean at volumes which I can't take anymore. PERFECT!

Exactly!

edwellywasalreadytaken · Fri May 23, 2008 6:34 am

So you think 75 x 4 into the tweets and mids should be OK? If so, what crossover points would you suggest?

gkitching · Post by **gkitching** » Fri May 23, 2008 7:35 am

Sure 75 watts would be fine. smgreen uses the same amount of power. I have 150 w/chnl going to each tweet and 5" and 360w/chnl going to my 9's. And they love it! The x-over point you mentioned is a good point to start. It's were mine are set but with a 18db/oct slope. You can go lower but I would recommend the 24db slope for anything lower than 3k.

Hope that helps!

mrblack · Post by **mrblack** » Fri May 23, 2008 7:42 am

In a case where I didn't know the frequency response of a pair of drivers I would just start with a high crossover setting and work my way down out of consideration for the tweeters safety. The real key here is to start with a high cut off frequency, say 6-7 khz and gradually work your way down. A higher slope when set at the right frequency will usually result in better blending, but depending on the type of crossover used I've heard that the use of different slopes in your system can introduce phase issues.

Starting high enough should result in a hollow sound that indicates your woofer is unable to blend properly due to its inability to reproduce the higher frequencies being sent to it. From there keep stepping down until the blend between the mid/tweet is clean and sounds its best. Keep in mind that tweeters can reproduce frequencies lower than they were intended to play at their rated power. Sending a tweeter lower frequencies than a manufacturer recommends will have a direct impact on how much power that tweeter can handle, however sending a mid higher frequencies than it was intended won't ever hurt a thing, it'll just sound bad.

The trick is finding the best blend between the mid/tweet, and then EQ out the kinks from there. RTA's are great and all, but one is not necessary to get an active system sounding great. Just trust your ears and proceed with caution, you'll be amazed at how much more dynamic the sound is when moving from passive to active.

A quick question, are you planning on protecting the tweeters in anyway with a passive crossover or inline fuse? If not you better be certain that you never have any turn on pop or you'll be saying goodbye to your tweets pretty quickly.

JonT · Post by **JonT** » Fri May 23, 2008 11:59 am

Any reasoning why Morel crosses the tweeters over much lower than the PG? On the hybrid ovation setup from Morel it's at 1800 hz?
Ever thought about using the Morel crossovers instead of the monster uni-crossover from PG?

gkitching · Post by **gkitching** » Fri May 23, 2008 1:59 pm

Good point Jon. Thier x-over points are really low. They state that the supremo tweets can go as low as 700hz. Thats crazy low! I can't say I would run them that low with any real power though.

I think Erik is set on doing it active. Although I can't say I've ever tried a Morel x-over on the PG elites.

edwellywasalreadytaken · Fri May 23, 2008 3:16 pm

My biggest reason for wanting to "try" active is that I can utilize my TA to it's fullest. I know how good they sound with the passives so maybe, just maybe they will sound as good or even better active.

However, if it doesn't sound as good, then I will go back to passives and put the tweets in the kick panels.

marko · Post by **marko** » Fri May 23, 2008 9:45 pm

having the tweeters crossed over at 4.5k+ won't improve imaging and staging, just an easier time on your tweeters, imo they got it right with 3.15k it's just the elite tweeter is so delicate and lightweight!

Fat_boy · Post by **Fat_boy** » Sat May 24, 2008 6:50 am

Now can you run active using the provided x-overs, just using it on it's own channel and the woofer on another? For example I have the RSD's. gonna run 75x4 rms and was thinking of running the tweets off the provided xovers but the mid woofer off its own channel using the Amps internal x-over. Good or bad?

edwellywasalreadytaken · Sat May 24, 2008 6:58 am

Fat_boy wrote:Now can you run active using the provided x-overs provided just using it on it's own channel and the woffoer on another? For example I have the RSD's. gonna run 75x4 rms and was thinking of running the tweets off the provided xovers but the mid woofer off its own channel using the Amps internal x-over. Good or bad?

GOOD IDEA & GOOD QUESTION!!!

mrblack · Post by **mrblack** » Sat May 24, 2008 11:44 am

Unfortunately, the setup described above would still be considered at least partially passive. The biggest difference is that your speakers would be bi-amped in which you could gain the time alignment benefits you're looking for... But fully active is still the better alternative if done correctly.

Also, I would guestimate that ~3 khz would be the lowest you'd want to run your PG tweets. With all the talk going around about how 'fragile' they are, even the mention of running them at 1.8khz or 700khz would be careless. I'm guessing the Morel and PG tweets are very different creatures.

gkitching · Post by **gkitching** » Sat May 24, 2008 2:51 pm

Nobody is suggesting running the x-over points at 1800hz or at 700hz. Merely pointing out that is the points for Morel x-overs. 3.15hz was suggested. The tweeters are NOT delicate as mentioned above and with smgreen's on going test in the Review forum http://phoenixphorum.com/elite-active-r ... t6015.html The purpose of the review was to lay to rest once and for all this fear of the PG Elite tweets.

mrblack · Post by **mrblack** » Sat May 24, 2008 5:13 pm

Originally posted by gkitching
You can go lower but I would recommend the 24db slope for anything lower than 3k.

Originally Posted by JonT
... On the hybrid ovation setup from Morel it's at 1800 hz?
Ever thought about using the Morel crossovers instead of the monster uni-crossover from PG?

Originally posted by gkitching
Good point Jon. Thier x-over points are really low. They state that the supremo tweets can go as low as 700hz. Thats crazy low! I can't say I would run them that low with any real power though.

... Although I can't say I've ever tried a Morel x-over on the PG elites.

Right here you showed interest in trying the Morel crossover to drive the tweets (at 1.8khz) and also said to use a 24db slope if the cutoff was set below 3khz...

I'm really not trying to be an ass here but the suggestion itself seemed rather careless, and the point of my post was to make sure that the OP didn't try to drive his tweets active at that low of a crossover frequency as I do not believe it's safe.

JonT · Post by **JonT** » Sun May 25, 2008 4:21 am

So what changed between the Morel and the PG tweets?
Does it help that the Morel crossover has the ability to bi-amp? Surely that will help with the TA function!

Post by **smgreen20** » Sun May 25, 2008 8:15 am

gkitching wrote:
smgreen20 .. Don't sweet it! You don't need to acknowledge me every time the subject comes up. You'll be the official expert on the subject from now on.

Just want to give credit where credit is due. I haven't made any posts about it for a bit so it's sorta my way of saying I haven't forgotyten and wont.

gkitching · Post by **gkitching** » Tue May 27, 2008 8:39 am

mrblack wrote:
Originally posted by gkitching
You can go lower but I would recommend the 24db slope for anything lower than 3k.

Originally Posted by JonT
... On the hybrid ovation setup from Morel it's at 1800 hz?
Ever thought about using the Morel crossovers instead of the monster uni-crossover from PG?

Originally posted by gkitching
Good point Jon. Thier x-over points are really low. They state that the supremo tweets can go as low as 700hz. Thats crazy low! I can't say I would run them that low with any real power though.

... Although I can't say I've ever tried a Morel x-over on the PG elites.
Right here you showed interest in trying the Morel crossover to drive the tweets (at 1.8khz) and also said to use a 24db slope if the cutoff was set below 3khz...

I'm really not trying to be an ass here but the suggestion itself seemed rather careless, and the point of my post was to make sure that the OP didn't try to drive his tweets active at that low of a crossover frequency as I do not believe it's safe.

Again, NOBODY SUGGESTED THIS!

What's careless is taking clips of quotes from an on-going discusion, to point the finger when it is obvious to anyone that has read this tread from the beginning that the mention of these crossover points came from the part of the discussion when JonT noted that the Morel crossovers are run lower. Nothing more then a question. Not a suggestion! At that point of the thread, it had already been discussed what the x-over points should be and the slopes. Any futher input was merely for the sake of discussion.

You quoted just a portion of my response that, by itself, may read like I claim they can go lower but omitted the previous sentence that clairified the statement you singled out.

The x-over point you mentioned is a good point to start. It's were mine are set but with a 18db/oct slope. You can go lower but I would recommend the 24db slope for anything lower than 3k.

The x-over point mentioned previously was 3.15k. Going lower would mean 2.5k which is hardly careless and I've run them as low as 2k. However I purposely did not mention this because ultimately 3.15k is were they ended up. 3.15k is what was suggested.

The last quote you picked out was a response to a question. I did NOT show interest. I stated I've never tried it. I did not state I wanted to or that I had any plans of doing so. How you get that I 'showed interest' out of that statement is beyond me.

The one thing I am not is careless! I am a professional and a true enthusiast. I have better things to do then get in a pissing contest with someone who can't see black and white when it's right in front of them.

This forum is what it is because it is full of intelegent people who know better then to just scan a tread, think we know what it's about and jump in with our 2cents and start pointing fingers.

If your point was that you were concerned that the later part of this discussion was not clear that these points were too low for the PG tweets, then say that. Don't pull out little snippets of quotes taking them out of context and start pointing fingers.

With that, I apologize to the members for getting side tracked on a totally useless rant just to clarify something I thought was obvious. Silly me

Post by **smgreen20** » Tue May 27, 2008 11:18 am

It is on my research that the more freqs you can get a MID to play and the less (within reason) the tweet plays, Imaging will improve.

I'm not saying that you should cross the mids over at 9K Hz, but more around the 4.5k-5.5k Hz. I have found that several SQ competitors use higher then normal xover points in that range.

There's even a review in the July 08 issue of CA&E (which I'm dissapointed with BTW, Broken up directory) on page 16 about Hybrid Audio Technologies C51-2 comp set which cross' over at 5.5K Hz mat 12dB/oct and it's geared torwards the SQ competitor.

So by that theory, why go lower?